from Prensa Obrera 835 - 29/01/2004
| TEXTS in ENGLISH from Prensa Obrera 835 - 29/01/2004 |
|
REPLY TO ALAN WOODS (SOCIALIST APPEAL)
An Arab who has lost his way
Alan Woods, leader of Socialist Appeal of Great Britain, wrote an extremely long reply (1) to the article published in Prensa Obrera which denounced Woods tailing of the COB (Central Obrera Boliviana - Bolivian Workers Trade Union Confederation) leadership during the revolutionary events of October. (2)According to Woods, "tThe PO is compelled to attack our tendency because it is worried about the success we are having internationally. It is afraid of the growth of our influence in Latin America and inside the PO itself." In a sudden fit of originality, he declares that "The dogs bark: therefore the caravan is moving," preferring the Arab proverb over Don Quixote ("they bark, Sancho…").If what Woods says is true, that our article of 4,621 characters reflects the progress of a caravan, the 101,000 that he wrote in response would be enough for the installation of a planetary station on Mars. It is the text of a man who has been overwhelmed; he seems to be out of control. More than an Arab marching in a caravan, he is a Turk lost in the fog.Woods’ political current has been in existence for seventy years. If only now "they are on the move" it is because the camels are going into retirement.What is Woods so proud of?
Woods responds that the leaders of the COB did not take power because they "are not revolutionary Marxists and therefore, in the moment of truth, did not know what to do." Lies, they did know what to do: support the "constitutional succession" (the only way the legislators were able to get to the Congressional building was because the leadership of the COB, Morales and Quispe cleared the way for them to pass through the multitude). Woods says that, in contrast to Oviedo, he "criticises the leaders of the COB in a constructive way…. [saying] to the leaders: very good, so far, but now you must take power!" It is the first time that an ultimatum given at the wrong time is presented as "constructive criticism."
Woods "explains" that the leaders of the COB did not take power because "they are not revolutionary Marxists," and at the same time he demands they take power… even though they are still not "revolutionary Marxists." How long does this sonata go on for, Woods?
Woods says that it is "self-evident" that the COB did not take power. But he hides the fact that it did not do so because it supported the "constitutional change-over." This change-over, we should remember, was imposed on the Bolivian exploiters by Kirchner and Lula, as a battering ram for the Yankee and European imperialists, that is, the world-wide bourgeoisie. In "the moment of truth" (October 17), the bureaucratic, pro-Indian rights and center-left leaders of Bolivia accepted the ultimatum laid before them by the Argentine and Brazilian "emissaries".
Proof and evidence of the fact that the COB leadership defended Mesa’s assuming power and the "constitutional succession," that is, the political and legal continuity of the bourgeois State, abounds.
Some days before the decisive moment, the trade union activist Gustavo Pavón denounced that "the leaderships who presented themselves as instances of the turn to the left, like the COB of Solares or the COD of El Alto, have begun to turn slowly to the right (and) have ended up giving in to the regime with constitutional kinds of solutions. The former saying that the Supreme Court of Justice should be the one to take power into its hands transitionally; the latter, that it should be the Vice-President" (article distributed over the internet, dated 15 October).
Two days later, the support of the leadership of the COB for Mesa to assume office was public knowledge: "At the same time –explained the press dispatch—Evo Morales and the leader of the Central Obrera Boliviana (COB – Bolivian Trade Union Confederation), Jaime Solares, coincided in celebrating the imminent resignation of the ruler and in supporting the constitutional succession so that Vice-President Carlos Mesa should take over as Head of State" (Argenpress, 17 October). Another cable: "In half an hour it will be 5pm and the proposal to allow Carlos Mesa to become the new President of Bolivia and afterwards await his fulfilling the demands (of the people) is gaining ground among COB leaders" (Econoticias, 17/10).
The COB leadership celebrates Mesa's assuming office as a "peoples triumph" (Woods also celebrates it); stopped the measures of struggle and helped to seed illusions in his meeting with Mesa and his participation in popular meetings together with the president (Bol-press, 23/10). Woods calls this an "error". The COB leadership was even behind the democratizing Argentinean left. Luis Zamora and Patricia Walsh rejected Rodríguez Saá assuming office and later, Duhalde; the COB, on the other hand, greets and celebrates Mesa in office and called on him to "fulfill the peoples program". As can be seen, there is no need to be a "Marxist revolutionary" in order to oppose constitutional succession in a crisis of power.
The politics of the COB leadership in October did not fall from the sky. They had not changed since the uprising of the previous February (at that time, Mesa was directly involved in the massacres, which caused them to demand that the Vice-President of the Senate take over governmental powers). This COB leadership, which Woods defends, had counted among its numbers members of the parties in power since the nineties and allowed essential gains to be swept away without giving a fight– and was even associated in "deals" with the privatizers of the pensions—(see for example the documented denunciations of Gonzalo Tigoso in "What the Anti-neoliberal Trade Union Bloc is" ("Qué es el Bloque Sindical Antineoliberal").
Half way through the year, a columnist wrote: "The COB is in the midst of its worst crisis. The kind of pacifist or compromising trade unionism assumed by the leaders made matters worse, leading to a deepening of the crisis" (Alerta Laboral, June, 2003). The open officialism of the leaders of the decade of the nineties led to the forming of a large opposition bloc, the Anti-neoliberal Trade Union Bloc, which came to control various Factory Federations (including La Paz), and had 300 of the 900 delegates to the Congress of the COB. Before the radicalization of the situation, the Congress of the COB limited itself to changing the Executive and its Secretary (the miner Jaime Solares was chosen). This was the leadership that was at the head of the people’s rebellion that had turned into a revolution. Under pressure from the masses and from the blows of the government, it began to radicalize its "language" but always within the perspective of the "constitutional way out."
The masses must be told the truth. Not lied to as Woods does. It is such an elementary question which requires no quotations from 1848 or 1932. The PO tells the masses: the politics of the leadership of the COB was counterrevolutionary; it is necessary to put in place a new leadership. Woods tells the leaders of the COB: "Very good, boys," "what you did was very positive"… so that he hides the fact that they dissolved a revolutionary situation a month in the making only to support the "succession." This is how they answered the demand (political consciousness) "Now is when" ("Ahora es cuando").
Woods political method is criminal in Bolivia, in Argentina, or anywhere else. You can pretend, you can write a hundred thousand characters, make extensive quotations from the Communist Manifesto and … lie about the leadership of the COB, all without leaving your chair in London.
1. Alan Woods, "Marxismo frente a sectarismo. Respuesta a Luis Oviedo (PO)"; http://argentina.elmilitante.org/index.asp?id=muestra&id_art=362
"Marxism versus Sectarianism. Reply to Luis Oviedo"; http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_vs_sectar.html
2. Luis Oviedo, "La posición contrarrevolucionaria de Socialist Appeal," Prensa Obrera, 20 de noviembre de 2003. http://www.po.org.ar/po/po826/bolivia.htm#posici%F3n
Luis Oviedo, "The counterrevolutionary position of Socialist Appeal", Prensa Obrero, November 20, 2003; http://www.po.org.ar/english/826art.htm
...And grandmother had a baby!(Argentine expression)
In a completely disproportionate manner, Pierre Broué (signing under the pseudonym of Michel Wattignies) lets fly two brutal insults against Luis Oviedo and the Partido Obrero in one of his articules on Bolivia. (1)
Broué asks himself if Oviedo, whom he characterizes as a "reporter-slanderer," "Is… stupid and illiterate or is he an organized and conscious falsifier?" What awakens his saintly indignation is the criticism on the question of the "natural leaders," which as we have already demonstrated refers to Quispe and Morales. Broué hammers away against Oviedo without quoting even once from what was published in Prensa Obrera (did he actually read it or did he let himself get carried away by listening to second-hand reports?).
But what is really important is that Broué and Woods establish an unprincipled alliance, from the moment in which their positions on Bolivia enter into contradiction on the essential questions.
Woods says that the leaders of the COB played "a very positive role"; Broué, on the other hand, characterizes Solares, together with Quispe and Morales, as "opportunists... who have now rallied around the government." Which is to say, after allying himself with Woods, Broué says that the liar Oviedo is right.
Broué's arbitrariness is complemented by that of Woods. What does Woods say when Oviedo sustains that Quispe, Morales and Solares had the position of supporting the constitutional "succession" or "transfer of powers?" "Oviedo shows that he understands nothing.... For Luis Oviedo, the leaders of the COB are the same as Quipse and Evo Morales - they are all one reactionary bloc. This is a typically sectarian attitude." What does the same Alan Woods say of Broué when Broué and not Oviedo is the one who puts Solares, Morales and Quispe in the same bag as "opportunists... who have now rallied around the government?" He says that Broué "makes a Marxist interpretation of the events of October in Bolivia."
Our critics constitute a mutual aid "corporation."
L. O.
1. Pierre Broué, "El comienzo de la segunda revolución boliviana"; >http://argentina.elmilitante.org/index.asp?id=muestra&id_art=365
"The beginning of the second Bolivian revolution", http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/bolivia_wattignies.html
" Début de la deuxième révolution bolivienne", http://www.marxist.com/languages/french/wattignies_bolivia.html
Constituent Assembly and dictatorship of the proletariat
Woods dedicates lengthy paragraphs to criticizing the slogan of Constituent Assembly. He does so, fundamentally, in order to dilute his politics of criminal tailing in Bolivia, mixing things together without rhyme or reason. He considers the Constituent (the slogan of the PO is a Constituent holding power) not only "counterrevolutionary" but also the "mother" of all the ills from which, according to him, the PO is supposedly suffering. In this regard he repeats well-worn commonplaces: that this is a democratic-bourgeois slogan and not a socialist one (well, what else is new?!) and that at certain times it can turn into an instrument of the counterrevolution (what else is new, once again!).
Where does he stand? For the dictatorship of the proletariat? No! He doesn't defend the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Our readers know that this "revolutionary Marxist" does not defend the dictatorship of the proletariat in any of his numerous and extensive writings; neither does he defend it on a theoretical terrain; for him, this concerns, at most, some far off historical reference. Woods, for example, dedicates hours of his valuable time attacking the Partido Obrero but has not found a single free minute to fix a position on the resolution of the Congress of the LCR which has publicly repudiated the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The more you search on his web site the less you will not find anything on this point. Neither he, as head of his "international," nor his French section have felt compromised, because they agree with the LCR: for all of them, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a "has been." Just as with the leaders of the COB, here also silence is complicity.
The PO has never stopped developing its politics on the basis of the strategy of the workers government (for us, the popular denomination of the dictatorship of the proletariat) even when raising the slogan of People's Constituent Assembly... and especially when raising this slogan, a transitional slogan, and not a "stageist" one. Woods, in contrast, is a unique case world-wide: he opposes, at the same time, the slogan of Constituent Assembly and dictatorship of the proletariat. Where does he stand?
In Bolivia he says, "what is needed is workers' democracy leading to socialism" ("The Bolivian workers had power within their grasp - Los trabajadores bolivianos tuvieron el poder al alcance de la mano", en http://argentina.elmilitante.org). Which is to say that he supports, not "dictatorship" but instead democracy, like the LCR. Moreover, he supports "labor" democracy, not workers democracy, which is to say, the popular front version of the democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants which The Transitional Program denounces.
L.O.
ALAN WOODS AND THE MALVINAS WARGod save the Queen... and the Kelpers
So that our readers may make up their minds regarding Socialist Appeal, it is necessary to be familiar with their position on the Malvinas war, which as loyal subjects of her gracious majesty, they call the 'Falklands.'
Hardly had Argentine troops disembarked on the islands, than SA started calling for the withdrawal of troops on both sides, denounced that it was a war between two equally imperialist powers and demanded respect for the self-determination of the Kelpers.
"The population of the Islands is English-speaking and of British descent.... Although there are only 1,800 Falkland Islanders, Marxists nevertheless have to take into consideration their rights and interests. The Junta's claim to the Falklands is purely an imperialist claim for loot..." (Ted Grant, "The Falklands Crisis - A Socialist Answer" http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/falklands_war_1982.html) They even got to the point of raising the possibility of a war " British workers and the Marxists will be willing to wage.... But only a democratic socialist Britain would have clean hands" (Idem.). So the current of our opponent Alan Woods promoted imperialist war against Argentina.
Twenty years later, SA continues to defend this "workers war" for the "self-determination of the Kelpers." "They have a right to decide whether they wish to live in a particular state. What position should Marxists - above all Argentine Marxists - have adopted in relation to the rights of these people? They should have opposed the invasion and annexation of their home [that of the Kelpers, LO] by the Argentinean capitalist dictatorship." (Phil Mitchinson, "The Falklands War -- 20 years later " http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/falklands_war_2002.html).
Let's make this clear: Política Obrera (antecessor to the Partido Obrero) was opposed to the invasion (it was the only one to do so), but was not opposed to defending Argentina headed by Galtieri against Thatcher's imperialist fleet supplied by the US at its base in Ascension Island and guided by Reagan's satellites.
But, if it were not for Galtieri, we would never have found out about Ted Grant and Alan Woods positions on the "national question" of the Kelpers since, significantly, before April 2 they had never bothered to demand the withdrawal of British troops or the self-determination of the islanders. Just like Thatcher, they consider the islands to be British territory, since they define their occupation by Argentine troops as an "annexation."
Already twenty years ago, Política Obrera unmasked the imperialist character of these positions: "What is the real significance of the Falklanders deciding their future? The same as the one for which the fleet was sent: colonial British restitution. And this because the only 'distinctiveness' the Falklanders have is that they are a British Colonial settlement; so that their self-determination is to form part of the British Empire. We are for the self-determination of the peoples as part of the struggle against imperialism. But it is a total absurdity to defend the self-determination of the imperialist settlers" (Julio Magri, "Malvinas, Epitaph (Malvinas, Epitafio)"; Internacionalismo, August/October, 1982).
Together with the Queen's soldiers, Woods shouted at the top of his lungs, "Argies, go home." For Socialist Appeal, the Malvinas are British and not a colonial occupied territory. Which is why they raised "self-determination for the Kelpers" --who did not wish to separate themselves from Great Britain-- but not the independence of the islands.
Woods prostitutes the right to self-determination of the peoples by placing it at the service of the reinforcement of colonial oppression. But since for the Marxists every national demand is subordinate to the proletarian revolution, his defense of "self-determination of the Kelpers" should have led him to raise a "workers government of the Falklands," something which evidently he did not do because it would have placed in evidence the complete ridiculousness of his positions.
These supporters of "colonial socialism" are the ones who attack the Partido Obrero.
L.O.
Who is the liar?
Woods calls me a "liar" on two occasions.
The first when he says I "invented" his having raised the slogan "all power to the COB." Woods' is the only one making inventions. Anyone can read that I never "accused" him of raising any such slogan, and can see for themselves who the liar is. Or, to put it in the words of Pierre Broué, who is the one who "is stupid and illiterate or... an organised and conscious falsifier."
The second occasion is when I affirm that he qualifies Quispe and Morales as "natural leaders of the masses." I am going to cite the paragraph in question so that the readers may reach their own conclusions: "Morales," writes Woods, "is clearly in no hurry to push Mesa off his tightrope. But the coca growers whom nominally leads vowed to continue with blockades of roads, while the country's other powerful peasant leader, Felipe Quispe, indicated that he would offer no truce at all. As the leader of the peasants' federation which played a key role in the nationwide road blockades that helped bring down Sánchez de Lozada down, Quispe continued to demand that the government meet all 72 of his group's demands and added a new one: that Mesa not serve out the remainder of his original five-year term but call new elections as soon as possible. Mesa agreed to that demand in his inaugural speech, but Quispe said: "In any case, we are going to continue with the blockades." And he added, "We are not going to be with the executive, we are always going to be opposition." This shows --concludes Woods-- that there is a deep undercurrent of mistrust and anger among the masses that is reflected in the intransigence of their natural leaders." Who is he referring to as "natural leaders" in the paragraph we have just cited? The medium-ranking leaders of the COB, as he says in a different place on another subject, or Quispe and Morales, as we denounce in our article? The quotation that is "out of context" is the one made by Woods from his own text.
L.O.
Alan Woods ignores the ANT(Asamblea Nacional de Trabajadores - National Workers Assembly)
Woods also attacks the PO because "it has played a negative role in refusing to unite the piqueteros in one common organization. Objectively, the interests of the piqueteros is to unite; division is harmful to their interests and only serves the interests of the ruling class. The only reason why they remain divided is because the different political groups (not only the PO) insist on maintaining control of "their" piqueteros. This conduct is frankly lamentable.... As a result, the movement now finds itself in an impasse." Whether or not it is "in an impasse," Woods can ask Kirchner, after the 70,000 person strong rally of December 20.
Has Alan Woods ever heard of the National Assembly of Workers? This Assembly was inaugurated in June, 2001, after the campaign of the Polo Obrero (16 December 2000), at the request of the Congress of the Unemployed of Salta (November, 2000). There have already been seven national assemblies, each one of which voted a plan of struggle which was carried out in united fashion, so ignorance is no excuse.
All of them held in common the effort to unify the piqueteros movement on the national plane in order for it to become a political protagonist. In the ANT are the organizations which, just as the piqueteros sing in their marches, "make no truce" with the government; we deliberate and act in a common fashion, as demonstrated by the spectacular rally on the second anniversary of the Argentinazo.
The ANT, with the "lamentable" methods which Alan Woods criticizes, has become not the principal, but the only opposition to the government of the national bourgeoisie. It is not the PO who says so; all the Argentine press says so.
We leave it up to our piquetero readers to consider whose politics, those of the PO or those of Alan Woods, are "lamentable."
L.O.
Volver a la página principal de Prensa Obrera
